1 2025:CGHC:59495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1128 of 2022 1 - Gokul Satnami S/o Shri Ghondul Satnami, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Birkoni, Tehsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh Board Of Revenue Bilaspur (Circuit Court- Raipur), Through Its Secretary, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner, Raipur Division, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Collector Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Tehsildar, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 7 - Bishahin Bai, W/o Late Shri Babulal Satnami, Village Birkoni, Tehsil And District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh., District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 5171 of 2022 1 - Bisahin Bai W/o Late Babulal Satnami Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Birkoni, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner Versus HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.12.11 17:24:38 +0530 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Manegement, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Board Of Revenue Chhattisgarh (Circuit Court Raipur), District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Additional Commissioner Raipur Division, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Collector Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Tahsildar Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Gokul Satnami S/o Ghondul Satnami Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Birkoni, Tahsil And District- Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 1128/2022 For Petitioner : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. GA For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate WPS No. 5171/2022 For Petitioner : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 to 6 : Ms. Shailja Shukla, Dy. GA For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. Surfaraz Khan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 08.12.2025 1. Since both these petitions assail the order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the Revenue Court, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) in Revenue Revision Case No. R.N/12/R/A-56/38/2019, they are being heard and decided by this common order. 2. The dispute pertains to the appointment to the post of Kotwar of village Birkoni, Tahsil Mahasamund. Both petitioners claim entitlement to be appointed to the said post. The facts emerging from the record indicate that one Babulal who was serving as Kotwar of village Birkoni, died on 23.03.2016 and the post of Kotwar fell vacant. Petitioner Bisahin Bai (in 3 WPS No. 5171/2022) submitted an application seeking appointment on the ground that she is the widow and legal representative of the deceased Kotwar. Her application was, however, rejected by the Tahsildar after due enquiry. In the meanwhile, petitioner Gokul Satnami (in WPS No. 1128/2022) was appointed as Kotwar by the same order. This order was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer, where it was registered as Revenue Case No. 8/A- 56/2015-16 relating to village Birkoni, Tahsil and District Mahasamund. The SDO vide order dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure P/3) dismissed the appeal filed by Bisahin Bai. Aggrieved by the said order, Bisahin Bai preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division, Raipur, registered as Revenue Case No. 83/A-56/2017-18. The Additional Commissioner by order dated 28.02.2019 (Annexure P/2) allowed her appeal holding that being the widow of the deceased Kotwar, she was entitled to preferential consideration for appointment. This order was thereafter challenged by Gokul Satnami before the Board of Revenue in revision. The Board of Revenue, by the impugned order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) after considering the rival contentions and disputed facts, directed the Tahsildar to invite fresh applications for appointment to the post of Kotwar of village Birkoni and, thereafter, to proceed in accordance with Section 230 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the rules framed thereunder. It is this order which is under challenge before this Court in the present petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPS No. 1128/2022, Mr. Surfaraz Khan, submits that the impugned order is unsustainable. He submits that Bisahin Bai had already crossed the age of 60 years, and therefore her candidature could not have been considered for appointment to the post of Kotwar. Accordingly, the Board of Revenue erred in remanding the matter for initiation of fresh proceedings. 4 4. Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned counsel for the petitioner in WPS No. 5171/2022 submits that petitioner Bisahin Bai, being the widow of the former Kotwar Babulal, enjoys a preferential right to be considered for appointment. He submits that the Board of Revenue erroneously set aside the well-reasoned order of the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, the reliefs sought deserve to be granted. 5. Ms. Shailja Shukla, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State in both petitions, supports the order of the Board of Revenue. She submits that given the nature of the dispute and the factual matrix, the learned Revenue Board rightly directed the Tahsildar to invite fresh applications and to proceed strictly in accordance with Section 230 of the Code of 1959 and the relevant rules. She submits that both petitions are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The core dispute concerns the appointment to the post of Kotwar of village Birkoni. Petitioner Bisahin Bai asserts a preferential right on account of being the widow of the deceased incumbent, while petitioner Gokul Satnami asserts that she is ineligible on account of age and relies upon his existing appointment to the post. 8. Be that as it may, the learned Revenue Court, after detailed consideration of the material and rival submissions, concluded that the ends of justice would be served by directing initiation of fresh proceedings permitting all eligible candidates to apply for the post, and thereafter proceeding strictly in 5 accordance with law. In the opinion of this Court, the said order does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage, learned counsel Mr. Surfaraz Khan submits that this Court vide order dated 17.02.2022, directed that if the petitioner is not relieved from his present posting, he may be permitted to continue till the next date of hearing, and he prays for continuation of the said protection. Accordingly, it is observed that the Tahsildar, Mahasamund shall comply with the order of the Board of Revenue dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure P/1) in its letter and spirit within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim order dated 17.02.2022 shall remain in operation until completion of proceedings before the Tahsildar, Mahasamund. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari